A powerpoint presentation made by professor Majia Holmer Nadesan is getting some attention around the web, in the presentation she claims that the Japanese authorities, among others, lied and covered up information about the Fukushima accident. So let's have a look at it.
Helen Caldicott declined to answer questions at a lecture...
The recently started Nuclear Literacy Project has a welcome entry, a person with knowledge in the field of radioactivity and nuclear engineering reports on a visit to an anti-nuclear seminar with Helen Caldicott. The person, PhD student Kallie Metzger, entered the meeting with some hope of a good discussion where there would be room for incorrect statements to be straightened out.
What Kallie found, however, was that the renowned anti-nuclear activist was more keen on scaring people into thinking like herself, and questions from the audience were responded to in a hostile and arrogant manner, if at all.
...attended by Kallie Metzger, Ph.D student in nuclear engineering.
After watching a few videos with Helen Caldicott, including her infamous TV-debate with George Monbiot from last year, we are, unfortunately, not surprised about her behaviour. The good news is that Kallie went to listen to Caldicott, and reported about it. We need more people like Kallie who attends these kind of meetings and try to raise relevant questions when remarkable claims are being stated. If Caldicott continues her tour in the same arrogant manner her audience should diminish rather quickly down to the die-hard fans of her outrageous claims.
So the hero of the week is Kallie Metzger. Read her account of the Caldicott seminar here. Then ask yourself: will you be our next hero?
Den andra december 1984 började Union Carbides bekämningsmedelsfabrik i Bhopal läcka kemikalier ut i omgivningen. Det är inte klart vad som orsakade läckan, det kan ha varit sabotage av en missnöjd anställd eller bara ren slump. Men konsekvenserna blev katastrofala. Människor överallt runt fabriken vaknade upp med hosta, kräkningar och kvävningskänslor.
De som försökte fly till fots exponerades bara värre, barn drabbades värst på grund av att kemikalierna var tyngre än luft. 3000 människor dog inom en vecka och ytterligare 8000 har dött pga sjukdomar orsakat av utsläppen. Upp till 200 000 människor har fått permanenta skador pga Bhopal. Bhopal räknas som en av de värsta industrikatastroferna någonsin och det mänskliga lidandet är omätbart.
Klockan 0:30 den 8 augusti 1975 kollapsade Shimantandammen i Kina, vattnet från det haveriet forsade över den redan överfyllda Banqiaodammen som även den brast och den resulterande flodvågen slet sönder över 60 fler dammar utefter Rufloden. När vattnet passerat hade närmare 6 miljoner byggnader spolats bort och 26 000 människor dog direkt. I de efterföljande epidemierna och hungersnöden dog ytterligare 145 000 människor. Det är med råge den värsta industriella olyckan någonsin, men det är bara en i en rad allvarliga dammhaverier som skett över hela värden. Till och med i Fukushimaprovinsen brast en damm pga jordbävningen och den resulterande flodvågen dödade 8 personer, dubbelt så många dödsfall som vid Fukushima Daiichikärnkraftverket.
Varför anklagar vi Miljöpartiet för att ha glömt bort dessa katastrofer? Vi gör det eftersom Miljöpartiet, med Lise Nordin i spetsen, blint hävdar att kärnkraft är den enda industrin som kan orsaka katastrofer. De hävdar det genom att påskina att kärnkraftsindustrin är unikt subventionerad eftersom den inte behöver betala en försäkring för den maximalt tänkbara olyckshändelsen. Då miljöpartiet blint riktar in sig på kärnkraften i artikel efter artikel efter artikel efter artikel, utan att med ett ord nämna andra riskindustrier, som tex kemikalieindustrin, petroleumindustrin, vattenkraften, flygindustrin och transporten av farliga kemikalier, kan man bara dra slutsatsen att Miljöpartiet ignorerar andra industriella risker. Den enda risken de bryr sig om är risken från kärnkraft.
En sådan attityd är farlig, om man särbehandlar en industri och blundar för andra industrier, då skapar man inte ett säkrare Sverige. Man ger bara sken av att bry sig om säkerhet när allt i slutändan handlar om ideologi. Om Miljöpartiet verkligen bryr sig om risker och vill göra Sverige säkrare borde de argumentera för att alla riskindustrier ska lyda samma regelverk. Den nya lagstiftningen som Miljöpartiet kritiserar jämnar bara ut spelfältet. Kärnkraften måste nu spela enligt precis samma regler som andra riskindustrier. Miljöpartiets fixering vid kärnkraft är precis lika destruktiv som deras fixering vid uranbrytning, antingen är regler och lagar godtagbara för alla riskindustrier och all sorts gruvbrytning, eller så är de inte det. Säkerheten blir inte bättre av att blint stirra på en sorts industri eller en sorts gruva.
Om Miljöpartiet anser att kraven på riskindustrier är otillräckligt, då borde de argumentera för att skärpa reglerna för alla sådana industrier. Om katastrofer ska användas som argument, då kan man inte glömma bort Bhopal, Banqiao och andra stora industriella katastrofer som skett som är av samma omfattning som Tjernobyl eller Fukushima.
Relevanta bloggar:
Mikael Ståldal Kärnkraften är fortfarande inte subventionerad
Aftonbladet Syn i bluffen om energipolitik
Mikael Andersson (C) Kärnkraft utan statliga subventioner är detsamma som ingen ny kärnkraft!
Martin Moberg Dagens lästips om C:s harakiri i kärnkraftsfrågan...
Mitt i steget Harakiri
Alliansfritt Sverige Ny överenskommelse om kärnkraft - fortsatt förvirring
Supermiljöbloggen Hatts svårlösta kärnkraftsekvation
Anna-Karin Hatt Inga subventioner till kärnkraften
It has been a busy day here at the NPYP center, where the members of Nuclear Power Yes Please held a press conference. They recently discovered a devastating text by Professor Chris Busby, where he shows that their criticism of his research is completely unfounded. The NPYP Scientific Director Mattias Lantz had attacked Professor Busby's articles about Fallujah (here, here, and here), by making a comparison of the sex-ratio (i.e. the number of boys born vs number of girls born) between the Iraqi city of Fallujah and his own city of birth, Avesta in Sweden. According to Lantz the variations in Avesta were as large, or larger, than the ones in Fallujah, so he reasoned that one could not claim that the variations in Fallujah were due to depleted uranium (DU). Professor Busby turned the data from Avesta around, and showed that Lantz had used the data in a dishonest way, even trying to hide an obvious correlation between increased sex-ratio in Avesta and the 2003 war in Iraq. Professor Busby's eminent rebuttal can be found on the LLRC web site (here). Below is the figure made by Lantz, with Professor Busby's hand-written notes that give evidence of the dishonesty of Lantz.
The plot with sex-ratio for Avesta where Professor Chris Busby could reveal the scientific dishonesty of Lantz and his NPYP cronies.
– ”I never even thought of the correlation,” a humiliated Mattias Lantz said at the press conference, ”but Professor Busby clearly shows that the deviating sex-ratio in Avesta around 2004 is due to the DU-weapons used in Iraq. Furthermore,” Lantz continued, ”this means that all of our past criticism of Professor Busby falls apart, just like a house built from a deck of cards. I now realize what an omnipotent genius he is. He is right about everything, even when he cheats with statistics.”
– ”And he is a great musician!” Gender Issues Director Nils Rudqvist adds.
– What does this mean for the future of NPYP?
– ”This changes everything.” says Policy Director and NPYP founder Michael Karnerfors, ”We have been wrong about all these issues; about radiation effects, nuclear power, cell phone radiation, chem-trails, dowsing, crystal healing and the HAARP experiment. Therefore, we will now turn sides in the debate on all these issues, and we will join Professor Busby, Mona Nilsson, Lennart Hardell and all the other serious researchers in their noble quests. From now on, scrutinizing alarmist claims, checking statistics, or asking the simple question 'Is this relevant?' has no place in what we consider to be a serious debate. Google was created to find the scary claims, not to scrutinize them. Many people are scared about radiation. From now on we will help them to maintain that status.”
– What about your close ties to the nuclear industry?
– ”We will pay back every penny of the funding we got from those bastards,” says Financial Director Christoffer Willenfort, ”and those of us who are employed by the nuclear industry will submit letters of resignation today, we are all done with it.”
– And the organization?
– ”The first reaction was of course that we should dismantle NPYP and join other groups, but after some intense brain storming we decided that it is better to continue, although under a different name.”
– ”Yes, from today we are Nuclear Power No Please,” confirms the Public Relations Director Johan Kreuger, ”and here is the new logotype!”
An embarrassing silence grew in the press room, until somebody in the audience dared pointing out an obvious error in the spelling.
The first version of the new Nuclear Power No Please logotype.
– ”C'mon people, give us a break!” Kreuger burst out. ”We have been wrong about so many things for years, so how can you expect us to get every tiny detail right immediately?”
– What is Lantz' status within the organization, can he continue to be a member?
– ”Well,” says Karnerfors, ”at first we thought that he had to go. We were all very disappointed with him and felt that we needed to distance ourselves from him and the dishonesty that he brought upon us. But we are all to blame. It was certainly Lantz who would initiate the studies of Professor Busby's claims, but we all started to act like stupid physicists and make independent double checks of numbers and other details. That was of course foolish of us, we should have trusted Professor Busby from the beginning without asking any questions.”
– So you now believe in Professor Busby's claims?
– ”How can you not, after what we have been through?” Reactor Technology Director Johan Simu says. ”Professor Busby has an expertise in so many scientific fields, not only in radiation effects. A few months ago he introduced a new definition of the term 'spontaneous fission', and with it he showed that TEPCO is lying about the status of the reactors in Fukushima. With the new definition, the reactors must clearly be active in a critical configuration. My personal reflection at the time was that this is utter nonsense. But now, after Professor Busby's proof of our dishonesty, I am all for it. The effects will be tremendous; all courses in reactor physics will have to be revised, and the commercial codes used today for criticality calculations have to be changed. But that is not all, recently he also showed that Einstein is wrong.”
– What?
– ”Yes indeed, Professor Busby's interpretation of the twin paradox is quite convincing. He has also promised to explain quantum mechanics on Youtube, something that we are all looking forward to. It is about time that somebody settles the issue whether that cat of Schrödinger is alive or not, the world deserves to know. Furthermore, this poor creature has been in this un-collapsed wave function state for so long, it is clearly a violation of animals rights that needs to be brought to an international court. Professor Busby's expertise also in legal matters will be very helpful in order to bring the perpetrators to justice.”
On the way out from the press room we manage to get hold of Mattias Lantz for a personal comment, he looks tired and stressed out.
Our reporter Kazue Avril gets a moment with a humiliated Mattias Lantz at the NPYP press conference.
– Will you apologize to Professor Busby and the other people that you have attacked over the years?
– ”No, of course not!” Lantz responds rather agressively. ”Earlier we would have done such a thing, or corrected our statements if they were found to be in error. Now when we have changed sides in the debate we will follow the established customs of our new friends. Apologies or amends are out of the question. Instead we move on forward, though in the opposite direction as before.”
– How did you react when it became clear that you had been so wrong about Professor Busby?
– ”I felt awful, of course. Not so much for my unfounded attacks on Professor Busby, but on a personal level it is devastating. In the plot that Professor Busby turned against me there is also a peak with high sex-ratio in Avesta during the 1970's when I was born. This puts the question about my gender at stake, maybe I was supposed to be a girl? This will take years of psycho-therapy to sort out.”
Then he excuses himself and pushes through the crowd towards the entrance, stopping every now and then, asking people if they know where he can get hold of a good beret.
We get a private interview with Industry Liaison Director Johan Kihlberg.
– ”Former Industry Liaison Director, if I may! The title does not exist any more now that we have severed the ties with the nuclear industry.”
– So, what is your title?
– ”Alarmist Organizations Liaison Director.”
– Ok, ok, so how was the error of Lantz discovered?
– ”We knew for a while that something was not right. Lantz has of course always been obsessed with Professor Busby. Certainly the money from industry and Socialstyrelsen kept him motivated, but there was also something else, some sort of...envy. And during the last few months he has become more and more deranged. You could find him at late hours in his office, but he would not deliver any new blog posts or forum entries. If you met him in the corridor you could hear him mumbling weird things for himself.”
– Weird things?
– ”Yes, phrases like 'eminent scientists', 'Bramhall is not a pushover', 'ICRP doesn't get it', or 'there must be a third event' were often repeated. Things like that. Then, a few days ago in the coffee room he made no sense at all, trying to convince us that 'the alarmists get laid more often than we do' and that we should buy a boat, or two. Last Friday we discovered that he had asked the market analysis division for an evaluation about entering the field of anti-radiation pills, and there were follow up plans for major investments in this field. When this was found out we decided to check his computer. It turned out that for the last month he had used the computer for only one thing, to visit the 'Dishonesty' page on the LLRC web site, over and over again.”
– So what did you do?
– ”It was the first time that any of us saw that web page, and after reading it we realized that it was all over. A crisis meeting was held, thereafter we summoned Lantz in order to have him explain himself. There was an intense discussion, with harsh words being exchanged in all directions, but finally we could agree on a strategy and decided to call for the press conference.”
– These plans that Lantz had initiated for anti-radiation pills, how far had he gone with them?
– ”Actually, very far,” Kihlberg responds with some excitement.
– So how did you stop it?
– ”We didn't. The analysis shows that we can make a huge profit even if we sell the pills at half the price compared to what Busby and his friends had in mind. We have some connections in Japan that will help us with the promotion, there are many ways to scare people into becoming your customers. For instance the Japanese TV-channel NHK has been very helpful by making an alarmist documentary in which the credibility of ICRP is undermined. We are also considering to buy the recently closed candy factory in Gävle. In that way we can have a local production directly in the areas that were most affected by the Tondel study.”
– You mean the areas that were most affected by the Chernobyl fallout?
– "No, by the Tondel study."
– Ah, whatever. So you will manufacture and sell pills in order to raise money for the suffering children?
– ”What do you mean? We have to make up for the losses now that we have stopped the funding from the nuclear industry. We are the good guys now, we need to make a living. Just look at Green Audit, the Cancer and Birth Defects Organization, and so on. They are registered as companies, not as charities, why should we be any different? Why live on secret funding from evil companies when we can make as much money in the open by exploiting the gullible, the naive, and the vulnerable? To have funding from the industry in order to change people's opinion is a difficult task, it is much easier to get money directly from concerned citizens in order to help them preserve their already established views. Busby is of course a huge inspiration in these matters, but we are also looking at other options.”
– What kind of options?
– ”For instance, Joseph Mangano and his Radiation and Public Health Project is a good example. They have managed to recruit celebrities like Alec Baldwin and Christie Brinkley for the fundraising. And they are very successful, just look at the suits of Mangano! So we hope to be able to do something similar from a Swedish perspective, if we can get stars like Manne the Clown and Solveig Ternström on our team, then we are all set.”
– So the future is bright...?
– ”Yes, brighter than ever. This has been a severe crisis situation for us, but thanks to Professor Busby we are finally on the right track. An event like this does not happen every day, but today it did indeed happen.”
Translation of the earlier post to Swedish
Det har alltid förbryllad mig (och jag tror att jag kan tala för oss alla inom NPYP) att någon kan vara anti mot någon energikälla. Anta till exempel att någon säger sig vara anti-kemisk energi, då skulle den logiska uppföljningsfrågan förstås vara "vilken typ av kemisk energi?". Helt enkelt eftersom det finns så många olika sätt man kan utvinna kemisk energi på, allt från att elda kodynga i hyddor till förbränningen av bensin i din bilmotorn till högteknologiska gasturbiner till dynamit. Snubben som yttrade påståendet har antagligen inte ens tänkt på de distinktionerna när han gjorde sitt uttalande. Men låt oss säga att han funderar lite grann och specificerar att han är anti-kol. Även detta uttalande kan ifrågasättas. Uttalandet måste följas av en hel del villkor för annars är det idiotiskt. Om han är anti-kol på grund av luftföroreningar, borde han då inte ändra sig om man blir kvitt föroreningarna? Om någon utvecklar ett filter som minskar utsläppen till obetydliga nivåer, är kol då ok enligt honom? Logiskt sett borde han tycka det. Om han är anti-kol på grund av den oerhört destruktiva kolbrytning, skulle han ändra sig om miljövänligare brytningsmetoder utvecklades? Killen är förmodligen egentligen "anti luftföroreningar" eller" anti smutsiga gruvor", inte anti kemisk energi eller anti kol. Han har bara aldrig brytt sig om att försöka specificera eller förstå vad för egenskaper hos kemisk energi han egentligen motsätter sig.
Detsamma kan sägas om vilken energikälla som helst, det finns det ingen rationell anledning att vara emot en energikälla i sig, snarare är man emot en viss oönskad effekt som uppkommer på grund av den nuvarande tillämpningen av en energikälla. Vi NPYPare är inga kolfantaster, men jag vågar svära på att om det fanns bra lösningar på problemen med kol, då skulle vi inte motsätta oss dess användning. Det finns ingen anledning att vara mot bruket av en energikälla om dess problem har lösts.
Fördelen med att gräva djupt och ange exakt vad man egentligen motsätter sig är väldigt konstruktivt, för det öppnar upp möjligheten att söka efter lösningar! Om någon bara säger att de är anti vindkraft så dör diskussionen ganska snabbt utan att ha kommit någonvart. Om personen i stället anger att buller från vindkraftverk är problemet, då kan diskussionen svänga in på möjliga lösningar för att minska buller. Alla vinner på det! Det finns ingen anledning att vara fruktansvärt känslomässig och klamra sig fast vid en "anti-något" idé så hårt att man blockerar alla slags givande diskussioner och blundar för lösningar.
Det viktigaste att diskutera är alltså vilka egenskaper hos en viss energikälla som gör att du motsätter dig den och och hur den kan förbättras så att du inte längre har några invändningar. Det mest frustrerande med kärnenergidebatten är att man aldrig tycks nå den punkten. Fråga ledande miljöaktivister den frågan och de kommer att häva ur sig 58 olika ursäkter utan att vara det minsta intresserade av eventuella lösningar.
Om någon är mot kärnkraft på grund av avfallsproblem så säger vi "Ok, men vad menar du exakt med avfallsproblemet och vad är det med avfallet som du anser vara så destruktivt?" Om du besväras av möjligheten att avfallet kommer att skada framtida generationer så kan vi börja diskutera hur man säkert kan förvara eller förstöra avfallet. Om du är anti kärnkraft eftersom du besväras av säkerheten, då är vår motfråga "hur säkert är säkert nog och hur ska vi uppnå det?". Uppenbarligen måste det finnas en nivå där en verksamhet anses vara tillräckligt säker, annars skulle personen i fråga aldrig kliva ur sängen och gå till duschen av rädsla för att halka och dö.
Men diskussionen slutar alltid som sagt innan den nått denna punkt. "Anti-personer" verkar i regel aldrig vara intresserade av lösningar på de problem de nämner och för det mesta kan de inte ens specificera vad problemet är från första början. Det gäller inte bara för kärnkraftsdebatten, man ser precis samma tendenser i alla typer av diskussioner där det finns en tydlig anti-sida. Anti genteknik, anti bilar, anti kött, anti utforskning av rymden, anti vad som helst! Det verkar vara väldigt svårt för människor att släppa den trygga känslomässiga bindning som uppkommer när man är kraftigt mot något och istället inleda en meningsfull diskussion om problemen och lösningar. Det är alltför lätt att bara vara emot något, det är väldigt mycket svårare att faktiskt söka lösningar!
Så för att försöka vrida kärnenergidebatten i en mer givande riktning så skulle det vara fantastiskt om några kärnkraftsmotståndarna kunde ange vilka villkor kärnkraft måste uppfylla för att vara en godtagbar energikälla. Tro det eller ej så har även vi sådana villkor. Jag tror till exempel inte att någon av oss vill se fler RBMK byggas (den typ av reaktorn som Tjernobyl tillhörde) och personligen har jag ganska högt ställda krav på hur kärnenergi ska utvecklas på lite längre sikt för att vara en acceptabel energikälla. Jag är inte anti kärnkraft, men jag är verkligen anti mot vissa sätt att utvinna kärnenergi.
För att sammanfatta utmaningen:
Join the chanting!
Once again the would-be world savers Janette Sherman (MD) and Joseph Mangano (something) are pushing for another round of scaremongering dressed in a scientific coat. They have got their nonsense about increased US infant mortality due to Fukushima published in a peer-reviewed journal. This time they have extended their faulty study and extrapolated the effect for the entire US. Lo' and behold, 14 000 deaths so far, they claim! The article, published in the International Journal on Health Services, can be found here. For a bit more easy reading, the press release here will probably do.
We will not spend too much time on scrutinizing this study, and others are already on to it, for instance Michael Moyer in Scientific American, and Barbara Feder Ostrov in Reporting on Health. Furthermore, S&M have not made any amends for their first two faulty attempts (our comments here and here), and since the new article follows the same line of reasoning, we can only condemn them for trying to push the same lousy trick a third time. This is political activism from anti-nuclear icons, it is not science.
Joseph Mangano shows the size of his remaining credibility
From the media releases about this, we find some interesting statements by Mangano in Medpage Today:
In a telephone press conference, Mangano said the finding is a "clarion call for more extensive research."
But he told MedPage Today that the researchers can't rule out factors other than the Fukushima radiation that might have accounted for the excess.
"There are probably a variety of factors that could be linked to this excess of 14,000 deaths," he said. "But it does raise a red flag."
This is indeed a clarion call. It is a call for celebrities like Alex Baldwin and Christie Brinkley to start contemplating what kind of nut-crack that they support financially. And it does raise a red flag, the umpire raises the red flag after three strikes. Sherman & Mangano, you're OUT!
Vi noterar i dagarna en artikel som publicerades den 21 November i den brittiska tidningen The Guardian, där Chris Busbys pillerförsäljning uppmärksammas. I artikeln, skriven av George Monbiot och Justin McCurry, redovisas de organisationer och websiter kring Busby som på sistone börjat sälja piller med mineraler som sägs rensa ut radioaktiva ämnen ur kroppen. Ett antal forskare inom olika ämnesområden avfärdar metoden och Busbys uttalanden som grundlösa och absurda.
Det hela började efter att Chris Busby i september lagt upp ett filmklipp på Youtube (här är filmen, och här är vår nedskrivna text av vad han säger) där han pratar om piller som de skall distribuera till självkostnadspris åt barnen i Fukushima. Artikeln i The Guardian visar tydligt att man säljer dessa piller till ockerpriser, tvärtemot vad Busby hävdar. Notervärt är även att vissa av websiternas länkar för donationer leder till ett konto i Wales kopplat till Busbys organisation Green Audit.
Chris Busby har tidigare varit vetenskaplig rådgivare åt det brittiska Green Party. Men nu tycks partiet äntligen ha insett att han går för långt, och distanserar sig från honom och hans senaste uttalanden.
Vi välkomnar detta uppvaknande och hoppas att de svenska organisationer och politiker som brukar frottera sig med Busby nu tänker om. Den bristfälliga forskning och de alarmistiska uttalanden han gör inom diverse olika ämnesområden har inte mycket med verkligheten att göra, och de som fortsätter hänvisa till hans studier undergräver sitt eget förtroendekapital.
En av artikelförfattarna, George Monbiot, har idag (22 november 2011) lagt upp lite mer information om Chris Busby på sin blogg (här).
/Nuclear Power Yes Please
Öppet brev till arrangörerna av Socialistiskt Forum (LO och ABF) och seminariet i ABF-huset, Ängbyrummet, lördag 19 november 2010, kl. 16.00-17.00 (Iraksolidaritet, ARK, FiB/Kulturfront och Socialistiska läkare).
På lördagens Socialistiskt Forum i ABF-huset hålls ett seminarium med titeln "Missbildade barn i Irak - ett krigsbrott". Vi noterar med förvåning att huvudtalaren är Chris Busby, självutnämnd strålningsexpert med tveksam kvalitet på den forskning han hävdar sig vara expert på.
På sistone har han gjort märkliga uttalanden om strålningsriskerna kring Fukushima, och han uppmanar lokalbefolkningen att ta piller med olika kemikalier i syfte att rena kroppen från radioaktiva ämnen. I samband med detta har flera företag börjat sälja diverse medel i Chris Busbys namn (mer information och diverse avslöjande länkar finns på den japanska websidan Chris Busby Foundation for the Children of Fukushima: http://www.cbfcf.org/).
Lördagens seminarium kommer dock handla om de rapporterade hälsoproblemen i den krigshärjade staden Fallujah i Irak. Vi är lika bestörta som alla andra över uppgifterna om drastiska ökningar cancer och andelen barn som föds med missbildningar, och är måna om att orsakerna utreds och att de drabbade får den hjälp de behöver.
Därför har vi granskat det två artiklarna om Fallujah som Chris Busby ligger bakom och finner ett antal allvarliga felaktigheter, överdrifter, tveksamma tolkningar och direkt fusk. Några exempel (utförligare förklaringar ges på länkarna längst ned):
Med allt detta sammantaget ställer vi frågan till arrangörerna av seminariet; Iraksolidaritet, ARK, FiB/K och Socialistiska läkare: Tror ni verkligen att ni kommer att lära er något om situationen i Fallujah genom att bjuda in Chris Busby? Borde ni inte kunna finna mer seriösa forskare i denna angelägna fråga?
Vidare ställer vi frågan till huvudarrangörerna LO och ABF:
Står ni bakom att man bjuder in en kvacksalvare till Socialistiskt Forum?
För oss är svaret dessvärre uppenbart. Den enda som kommer tjäna något på morgondagens seminarium är Chris Busby själv, det blir ytterligare en fjäder i hatten för honom. För alla människor som är engagerade i de olika frågorna i Irak och Fallujah blir detta ett slöseri med deras tid, engagemang och pengar. Och trovärdigheten för de arrangerande organisationerna, inklusive LO och ABF, naggas i kanten.
Nedan finns länkar till de blogginlägg där vi har granskat, och fortsätter att granska, Busbys artiklar om Fallujah:
För det oberoende nätverket Nuclear Power Yes Please:
Mattias Lantz, Uppsala
Johan Kreuger, Uppsala
Nils Rudqvist, Göteborg
Michael Karnerfors, Lund
Liisa Petrykowska, Accra
Johan Kihlberg, Linköping
In the previous post, it was noted that Busby's claims about a deviating sex ratio in Fallujah (first article here, second article here) may not be such a significant finding as he makes it sound, and that Busby is well aware of it but doesn't change his approach about it. There are weaknesses in the study, both methodological and due to the difficult circumstances in performing the study. So, in lack of other data, the results of the study may be of interest, and if properly designed the survey may give much better results than other kinds of surveys. But with the weaknesses in mind it would be reasonable expect a more humble approach from Busby and co-authors about the conclusions, if they are serious about it, that is.
One of Busby's most significant findings, according to himself, is the deviating sex ratio for the children born in the years after 2004, the year of the battle of Fallujah. The first study shows a decrease in the number of boys with respect to the number of girls, 18% below the normal level (860 boys to 1000 girls instead of the expected 1055 boys to 1000 girls). According to Busby this must be due to mutagenic stress induced by radioactivity from uranium. To support this theory he cites studies about lower sex ratios when the parents have been exposed to uranium in mines, medical radition treatment, and the Hiroshima bomb. So if we ignore the weaknesses of the study, we may agree with Busby that an 18% reduction in the number of boys born is interesting.
The problem is that he consistently ignores all other possibilities. The wikipedia page on human sex ratio gives a number of environmental and sociological reasons for deviations in the sex ratio. Busby does not mention a single one of them. Considering the heavy fighting in the city, there may also be further reasons for deviations, including stress and the simple fact that maybe people are not putting priority on making babies when their homes and a good fraction of the city (and the country) have been smashed into rubbles. The issue about if uranium based weapons were used at all in Fallujah is an open question, there are opposing views on this issue (it has surely been used in other parts of Iraq). If we assume that uranium based weapons were used, then we would expect Busby to at least mention the known chemical toxicity of uranium. Instead he puts all emphasis on the radioactivity from uranium, his theories about radioactivity is the only thing that matters for this self-proclaimed international expert on radiation.
Considering how many attempts Busby has made with epidemiological studies (and failed badly with some of them) it is quite remarkable that he still has not learnt to be cautious with the most important parameter: low statistics. Furthermore, with all the possible reasons that he excludes as potential causes, he never asks the question: Is a deviation in sex ratio always due to mutagenic stress from radioactivity? It is always due to mutagenic stress at all? Let's find out.
As noted in an earlier blog post, Busby is quite upset with the Swedish Health Authorities (Socialstyrelsen) for not letting him use their cancer statistics data base, apart from the data that are publically available and that he already mistreated last year. I have some good news for him, he can play with another data base, the one from Statistics Sweden (Statistiska Centralbyrån, SCB), which has a lot of interesting data on the Swedish population. Let us use this data base in order to check the sex ratio for a few cases. Let us start with checking the sex ratio for the entire population in Sweden, i.e. the number of born boys every year divided with the number of born girls every year. As in Busby's article we normalize to 1000 born girls and expect the sex ratio to be around 1055.
Sex ratio for Sweden during the time period 1968-2010. Source: www.scb.se
We see that the sex ratio is indeed very close to 1055, the average rate is 1058. And it fluctuates very little, it is always well within the span 1040-1070, with minor statistical deviations. But we have lots of statistics when we use the number of born children in entire Sweden. So let us look at the same situation for a medium sized city in Sweden, for instance Avesta, the city where I was born. We use a blue line for the sex ratio for each year, and a red line for the 5-year average:
Interesting fluctuations indeed! Busby has made a lot of fuss about the level 860 boys to 1000 girls. This in a total cohort of 4843 persons. The population of Avesta is more than 21 000, so we should have more than enough statistics in order to make a fair comparison and even err on the side of caution. We see that the sex ratio (blue line) fluctuates year by year around the expected value of 1055 boys to 1000 girls, though in some years the sex ratio is down to 800 boys to 1000 girls. But in the Fallujah study the data were shown as cohorts of 5-year averages. The red line shows the data for 5-year averages for Avesta. This curve does not fluctuate so drastically as the blue line, the extreme values cancel out. In spite of this we see a drastic decrease in the sex ratio for the last five years, going down to slightly less than 900. This is not as low as the value 860 in Fallujah. But it is based on better statistics, and from a trustworthy source that probably has the numbers correct down to each individual child. And to my knowledge Avesta has not been bombarded with uranium based weapons recently.
Now, can we find any city in Sweden where the 5-year average of the sex ratio at some time in the period 1972-2010 is lower than 860? In order to be fair we should set a constraint that the city should not be too small. The population pyramid in Sweden is very different from the one in Iraq, so in order to have enough children born for a fair comparison we set, arbitrarily, that we want to find a city with a population of at least 10 000, where the 5-year average of the sex ratio at some time has been below 860. Well, look:
Sex ratio for 8 Swedish cities with populations larger than 10 000 people. The Fallujah data are inserted as a thick grey line. Click on the picture for a link to a larger version.
The figure is a bit messy, but the main point is to look at the extreme values for each city. We find eight cities that fulfill the requirement of a 5-year average sex ratio that at some time is below 860. The cities are: Trosa (pop 11 492), Åtvidaberg (11 474), Mörbylånga (14 152), Burlöv (16 825), Strömstad (11 965), Filipstad (10 506), Nora (10 462) and Hedemora (15 141). The data from Fallujah are shown as a broad grey line.
Wait a minute, you may say. These cities are probably from the same region, and share some common environmental effect. Hardly, the map below show their locations in Sweden. Furthermore, the fluctuations for the different cities do not agree in time with each other. It is therefore very unlikely to find a common cause. Except low statistics, just as in the sample from Fallujah. If we include Swedish cities with populations below 10 000 then we will find more than 30 with sex ratios below 860 in the 5-year average, some of them well below 750. The reason is, again, low statistics.
Map of Sweden, with the location of the 8 cities shown.
But what about the drastic decrease in the number of born children in Fallujah, the number of boys born went down with 50%? This must be due to an environmental effect, right? Well, not necessarily. There can be many different reasons for why there is a decrease in the number of born children, not the least after an intense battle occurring in the city. But let's take a look at the 8 Swedish cities again, now we look at the number of born boys:
The number of born boys in the 8 cities that we look at.
Once again we see that the dramatic variations in Fallujah are not extreme when comparing with some of the Swedish cities. Each Swedish city has its own behaviour, mostly depending on local variations in the population. But most of them share a common drop from a peak value around the year 1992. For Hedemora the number of born boys is reduced to almost 50% over a ten year period, with 35% decrease as the most dramatic drop over a 5-year period. But why is there such a decrease in most of the studied cities? Well, let's look at the number of born children for all of Sweden:
Number of born children in Sweden, 5-year averages, 1968-2010. Source: www.scb.se
We see that there was a peak around 1992 followed by a quite drastic decrease, in 1997 the 5-year average number of born boys was 26% lower than in 1992. Is it due to the bad economy of Sweden at the time? Or was it less "popular" to have children for a couple of years? There are surely studies available regarding likely causes. Whatever the reason, we can easily exclude uranium based weapons. This does not disprove any hypothesis about uranium being the cause in Fallujah. Furthermore, I have only looked at the sex ratio while the article deals with a number of health effects, but whoever argues for uranium being the cause has a lot to explain before talking about significant findings the way Chris Busby does.
A few conclusions:
There are indeed more things to say about Busby's studies on Fallujah. When time permits they will be brought up on this blog.
Mattias Lantz - member of the independent network Nuclear Power Yes Please
.png)
The spent fuel pool at Fukushima #4
Friday, May 11th, 2012A former DOE assistant secretary for renewable energy, Robert Alvarez, has lately been spreading a lot of fearmongering about the stability of the spent fuel pool in reactor 4 at Fukushima. From the start of the accident a lot of question marks regarding the pool has been floating around, including the statement from the NRC chairman Jaczko that the pool might have run dry. Later is was however shown that the pool was never in any danger, it was never damaged in the earthquake and tsunami and it never ran dry. TEPCO released footage from the pool itself and its clear that it is intact and full of water.
The new rumors spread by Alvarez is that the spent fuel pools are in danger of collapsing and that somehow the entire cesium content of the spent fuel would spread uncontrollably, rather silly considering that not even the Chernobyl accident managed to spread more than 20-40% of the cesium inventory of the reactor despite exploding and burning in open air for days. No amount of zirconium fire can approach that.
Akio Matsumura has picked up on the issue and added some "spice" to it.
Many of our readers might find it difficult to appreciate the actual meaning of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.
Chernobyl, as bad as it was, will likely not cause more than a couple of thousand extra fatal cases of cancer and so far no increase in cancer rates, except thyroid cancer, has been seen. Even if one where to assume that somehow magically all the Cesium would be released from all the pools, and assume it causes consequences 85 times as bad as Chernobyl, its still hard to see how it would be the "end of our civilization". If one assumes 85 times as many people where to die then the accident would be about half as bad as the Banqiao hydropower disaster, China still exists as a nation! The Chernobyl exclusion zone is now a thriving wilderness and that makes it hard to understand how it would "destroy the world environment". Chernobyl was in no way pleasant, but 85 times Chernobyl isn't the end of the world. Amusingly Matsumura also quotes this from Alvarez:
The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).
Well uhmmmm, civilization didn't end and the world environment didn't collapse due to that, so why would half again as much make the world kick the bucket? No this isn't rocket science Mr Matsumura, but it seems you fail to grasp it anyway.
TEPCOs reply to the issues is a strong statement that the pool is in good health and that it could handle another earthquake of the same magnitude. Further the pool has been reinforced to the extend that it is even stronger now than before the accident.
The upper part of the Reactor Building of Unit 4 was damaged due to a hydrogen explosion. We confirmed the items below and affirm that the building, including its spent fuel pool will not collapse should another earthquake occur.
1) We measured the distance between the water surface of the spent fuel pool and the floor surface of the building, and confirmed that the building has not tilted.
2) Our analyses show that the building, including the spent fuel pool, will not collapse even if an earthquake equivalent (seismic intensity 6) to the Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake occurs in the area.
3) In addition, we have improved the seismic safety margin by 20% by reinforcing the bottom of the spent fuel pool.
4) We will regularly check the reactor building and the spent fuel pool four times per year to confirm their soundness.
Rod Adams mentions on his blog Atomic Insights that a detailed technical response to Alvarez claims are in the works and it will be very interesting to read it. The #4 spent fuel pool has obviously turned into a disappointment for the anti nuclear crowd since it never ran dry, it never released any activity and it seems to be holding up very well, so they continue to make up more and more fantastic scenarios on how it will fail.
More about the whole thing can be read on Idaho Samizdat and at Atomic Power Review.
Tags: Cesium, Cs-137, Fukushima, Reactor, spent fuel pool
Posted in Bad Science, Commentary, English, Fukushima, Nuclear Power? Yes Please, Uncategorized | 47 Comments »